america has a very ambivalent attitude toward international law. we are in some respects the greatest spokesman sometimes their international law. read the history and culture war and through the effect refunded the united nations, or have been among the most persistent ignores of international law at the same time. it is always -- partly because we have an exception of the that the laws are right for everybody. they're not always run for us because we have a special role to play. >> is there a bad thing damaging to our status and credibility in the international community? >> it seems to me if you try to say it in one sentence with the united states goal ought to be, it is ought to be creating a world order. it is what we would like for were not the most powerful country. that is one has a role. the role of relevant here is prevention, that is recognized as a legitimate -- what is not recognized is prevention. the difference has to do with the eminence of the threat. if there were clear evidence that iran was violating its -- was were penalizing t